Friday, June 13, 2008

No, Betinna tonight. I'm enraged and not in the mood to write a chapter. C.I. and Kat were listening to my draft over the phone. I came to my third joke with no reaction. They are always the best audience.

They are generous with their praise and laughter. (And will suggest that some step is left out when it is or any number of things that keep me focused.)

I asked, "Hey, are you two there?"

They immediately apologized and explained they were furious and not the best audience right now. I asked what was up?

This is what is up, "Sexist Campaign Coverage Continues"

Sexist coverage of the election did not end when Senate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) suspended her campaign. Earlier this week, Fox News ran a blatantly sexist and racist graphic referring to Michelle Obama as Senator Obama's "Baby Mama."

The crap continues but that's more than enough of it. It's from Ms. Magazine's Feminist Wire Daily and they've got a lot of nerve using "Continues" in their heading when their ASSES STAYED SILENT AS HILLARY WAS ATTACKED EVERY DAMN DAY.

You LIED and told people, when confronted on YOUR SILENCE over the sexist attacks on Hillary, that Ms. couldn't comment. They weren't allowed to because of their tax status.

LIE.

LIE and you are a LIAR.

Ms. didn't comment because you didn't want to help the first female candidate for president who had a real shot and the reason is because you love you some Barack.

Let me make it real clear to Whiteys out there, it is offensive to this Black woman that Barack is repeatedly called "Black." He is bi-racial. There is nothing wrong with being bi-racial but it is not Black.

I am the mother of three children, they all grasp that Barack is not Black. Not because I told them but because they are Black and they have eyes. They know what Black looks like.

Barack has his grandfather and mother's chin, their ears, their eyes. (His father's eyes would have been a curse.) He has his grandfather's ears. Maternal grandfather.

In your White eyes he may be Black but my children could spot reality.

Your little lies that this is what a Black man (note the 'man') can achieve is bull.

It's what a bi-racial man can achieve. My children can not pass for White or mixed or half. They know what they look like and we don't need you well meaning Whites, so quick to erase your guilt (over what, I don't know, maybe it's a collective, historical guilt), telling us that he's Black.

We didn't need Hillary Hater Donna Brazile being allowed to pose in the magazine as someone who's fair. But Ms. doesn't need a closet case writing for it to begin with.

I don't know what Donna's problem. In Atlanta, our guess is that her mother told her, "Fine you're gay but I don't need to know about it!"

I don't care what her excuse is. She's a lesbian stuck in the closet. That's not a strong message to women and she doesn't need to doodle for Ms. magazine.

So now Ms. wants to pay attention to sexism . . . when it effects Michelle Obama.

A presidential candidate they can't defend, a possible First Lady they can. How 'traditional.'

Ms. is making itself a piece of crap. It has let down feminism, it has let down women.

And considering Michelle's sexist comments about Hillary, it's laughable that you now want to defend Michelle. While staying silent month after month on Hillary.

It's too little, too late, Ms.

LIE FACE Melissa Harris-Lacewell told Bill Moyers in 2007 that Barack is Black because anyone who could have been a slave all those years ago in the US should be considered Black. Of course liar Melissa is part of the Barack campaign, a detail she loves to conceal in her interviews and people like Charlie Rose and Amy Goodman help her conceal.

Black history apparently didn't take with Melissa who never grasped that "octoroon" uses the same insulting thinking she does.

The word is bi-racial. He had a White mother, he had a Black father. That's a fifty-fifty split and Melissa wants us all to know he's Black?

One of the most disgraceful episodes for my community in the late 90s was some 'leaders' rejecting bi and multi-racial as categories.

(Michelle Obama is Black, in case anyone doesn't know or is wondering.)

It appeared to all come down to recognition and funding. It was disgraceful.

Bi and multi-racial people already exist in this country and their numbers will only grow. Insisting that they are one race and denying the other(s) is racism.

I was a teenager in the nineties and one of the exciting things about that was seeing a shift to diversity. I didn't even realize that was what I was witnessing. I just thought, "Wow." I was too young to know about the battles until the backlash started at the end of the 90s.

Barack Obama put homophobes on stage in South Carolina to scare up their votes. He did it by appealing to a very real homophobia that is sadly strong in some parts of the Black community. Feminists avoided called him out for it by and large. Feminists said it was okay to use homophobia with their silence.

The LGBT community and the bi and multi-racial communities were among the first tossed under the bus to push Barack.

Michelle's use of sexism was only echoed by her brother's remarks to The New Yorker.

Now I'm supposed to feel sorry for her?

Grow up.

No, it's not nice when sexism is used against anyone.

But Michelle used it.

And her husband sure did. "99 problems but a bitch isn't one of them." Does anyone not get how offensive that 'celebration' song Barack's campaign used in Iowa was?

Maybe they figure it's a "Black thang" and so it's okay.

Let me make it clear for feminists of all colors, you're not helping Black women by refusing to call out Barack's use of sexism. What wa she said about Hillary that sometimes when she's periodically feeling down, she feels the need to lash out? That the claws come out?

If his wife, who didn't just stay silent but used sexism herself, gets payback now, I won't shed any tears.

Barack's campaign has been built on homophobia, false charges of racism and sexism.

Unlike Barack or Father Micheal Pfleger, I actually am Black. I know racism when I see it.

Racism is not Bill Clinton calling Barack's Iraq claim a "fairy tale." Barack's story is a fairy tale. He gave a speech against the Iraq War before it started, voted for funding it in the Senate, told The New York Times in 2004 he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution. Repeated that to The New Yorker in 2007. Vanished his 2002 speech from his campaign website when he ran for the US Senate.

Racism is not Bill Clinton saying Barack would be a roll of a dice. We say "craps."

Racism is not someone pointing out that Barack did drugs anymore than it was racism when Bill Clinton's pot use was raised in the 1992 campaign.

Barack did drugs. I'm not crackpot Dave Lindorff, a White man who supports Barack because Barack "risked jail as a Black man to do drugs."

Life was hard for Barack in the inner city of Hawaii where he attended his posh prep school in the late seventies. That's why he did pot.

Is that the lie we're all supposed to believe?

Barack wrote about using pot and coke in his two books. He cracked jokes about his pot use with Jay Leno (he inhaled, he insisted to big laughs). But no one else can point out that Barack did drugs without it being racism?

What a load of crap.

As my father always points out, it's these false charges that hurt the Black community. There is very real racism in the US and when a bunch of crap is called racism and it's not, it backfires not on the White community, but on the Black community.

I'm getting really tired of Barack posing as Black for his own political gain -- and the media declaring every thing about his life off limits because he's "Black" -- while he offers the Black community nothing.

He is the White get out of jail free card. Vote for him and racism is over.

Only for those of us who are Black, it's not.

But that's the lie his campaign is built around. A vote for the bi-racial man means you never have to do anything about the very real racist inequalities in society.

Now maybe if I were bi-racial posing as Black, I'd be all in the post-racial Kool-Aid.

But not only am I responsible for me, I'm responsible for my three children.

They're going to grow up in a racist society and if a miracle allows Barack to win the general election, they're still going to be living in a racist society while Whites congratulate themselves on how racism is over and all wounds are healed.

It's a lie but that's all Barack's ever had to offer.

Lies, empty slogans.

I'm supporting Ralph Nader.

I wish I could say I was supporting Cynthia McKinney but her campaign has posted the crackpot woman hating Ishmael. And she's defined victory not as the White House but as five-percent of the vote. And, most important, she stayed silent throughout the sexist attacks on Hillary.

I didn't. I knew damn well that as a Black woman, my pointing out the sexism could carry more weight for a few people because wasn't the lie that sexism was no big deal?

We heard it over and over. We heard it from racists Robert Parry and Robert Scheer. Two elderly White men that need to leave the public stage. But they hate Hillary (in 2007, Scheer said he'd vote for Nader if Hillary was the nominee -- while screaching at Nader not to run). So they were happy to scream racism and belittle the very real sexism.

Jesse Jackson is Black.

Jesse Jackson experienced real racism in his runs. I don't mean from the nutty right wing. That's a given. And all today's 'critics' have to offer as examples of racism against Barack. I mean from the MSM. They didn't do that this go round. They loved Barack -- the candidate of Wall Street.

Instead they used sexism to destroy Hillary. They was the MSM like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, David Schuster, Tim Russert, and many more.

They was also Matthew Rothschild, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Betsy Reed, Laura Flanders (another self-loathing lesbian), Danny Schechter (who attacks all women who don't 'know their place' -- hence, his non-stop war on Katie Couric for how many years now?), David Corn, John Nichols, Sharon Smith, Jeremy Scahill (I loved it when Scahill was whining -- Hillary was proposing outlawing contractors in Iraq and that wasn't good enough, Barack was proposing nothing but it was 'difficult' for Barack), Amy Goodman, Allan Nairn ('yes, Barack takes money from big business, but out of fear' argued Nairn), and so many more.

Make a list of all the people using racism against Barack in 2008, all the media outlets and, after you cross off the right wingers, it's going to be a short list. You didn't have Randi Rhodes screaming vile names at him into a microphone, that was Hillary she attacked.

And through it all, Ms. magazine wanted to stay silent.

Now they want to fret over Michelle.

It's bulls**t.

When it mattered, they didn't say a word.

I happen to know (because Ava passed on both articles) that two rank, vile and disgusting articles were written about Cindy McCain this week. But Ms. isn't calling that out, are they?

But we're all supposed to feel sorry for Michelle Obama?

Forget it. She made her bed, she needs to lie in it. If there are bed bugs, oh well.

It's real funny how pathetic Ms. magazine has become. It has nothing to say to women period and this crap that they're going to rush to defend Michelle is nothing but crap.

Where were they when the "nut crackers" of Hillary were being sold? Being sold at MSNBC stores in airports?

No where.

Baby's Mama?

They're idiots.

They're White idiots.

Hello Feminist Wire Daily, let me introduce you to Prince. "Future Baby's Mama." It's a song by Prince. It's about a woman he's attracted to and, if you missed it, Prince is in a heavily Christian phase for about ten years now. It's a song about a woman he wants to date, wants to marry, wants to have a child with.

You're so White, you don't even know that.

You're so White, you're insisting it's slang for an unmarried woman who has a baby.

You're so pathetic and so disgusting.

Apparently you all saw Tina Fey's pathetic movie and that was the first time you ever heard the phrase.

Celebrity gossips are not known for their contributions to English letters. In tabloids, the copy is breathless, the headlines are stunningly literal, and the "hand-written" photo captions seem to toggle between "Awww!" and "Ew!" But as they zero in on celebrity mating and breeding rituals, the magpies keep breaking new linguistic ground. First they imported the British term bump, a noun used to refer to the protruding abdomen of a pregnant starlet. Then they awarded celebrity couples mash-up nicknames like "Bennifer," "Brangelina," and "TomKat." Now they've seized upon baby-daddy and baby-mama, two useful terms that have long appeared in hip-hop and R&B lyrics, and are slowly stripping them of their emotional fangs.The Oxford English Dictionary defines baby-daddy as "the father of a woman's child, who is not her husband or (in most cases) her current or exclusive partner." The baby-mama entry follows the same template with the genders reversed. But some gossip writers have been adopting the first part of the definition and ignoring the second. Salon recently called Tom Cruise "Katie Holmes' baby-daddy," even though the couple is engaged. And Gawker refers to Keven Federline as "Britney Spears' baby-daddy," even though the couple has been married for more than a year.

Get it, pathetic? The use grew sometime ago. And if you can't grasp it, that article was published in May of 2006. But here's the culturally blind Ms. magazine jumping on the Barack bandwagon. The campaign hollers and the stooges come running.

I'm sick of it. And Ms. needs to pack it in. It's not serving the cause, it hasn't. It stayed silent while Hillary was accused of "pimping out" her daughter. It stayed silent when Keith Olbermann said she should be taken into a room by a man and only "he" emerges. It stayed silent month after month with Michelle Kort insisting they would lose their tax exempt status if they didn't.

Michelle Obama gets called a Baby Mama and suddenly it's time for Ms. to man the cannons!

Pathetic.

Screw you, Ms. magazine.

You've done nothing for women all year and now you want to prop up a potential First Lady? And expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even know what you're talking about?

This is so typical of the press and so typical of the Barack campaign. Barack's bi-racial so maybe he truly is ignorant of Black culture. But Michelle damn well knows better. Ms. should have as well. But Ms. should have been at the forefront calling out the very real sexism Hillary faced day after day. And Ms. didn't. Because they're pathetic. Because the 'feminist' magazine is in the tank for Barack and because Michelle Kort is a sorry excuse for a human being.

One more thing. They never called out the sexism launched at Katie Couric for two years now. They really are that DAMN PATHETIC. And Katie's commentary this week? 'Feminist' Wire Daily couldn't tell their 'readers' (all two?) that the only female anchor called out the sexism used against Hillary. Way to go, way to take one for the 'ladies,' you pathetic piece of crap.

Also see: "Ms.went from playing dumb to outright insulting" and grasp that Ava and C.I. could call out sexists while Ms. stayed silent. While Ms. played useless. While Ms. betrayed women. We all worked on "Norman Solomon remembers 'the ladies'" but Ava and C.I., at our request, punched it up and made it the strong and hilarious commentary it is. Ms. never called out any of the 'left' males showing up to lecture women that they shouldn't vote for Hillary out of gender identity. As a Black woman, I'm fully aware that Solomon, Mark Karlin, Robert Scheer, et al, never urged Blacks not to vote for Barack out of racial identiy. But they could lecture the 'ladies' (of all races). Where the hell was Ms.? Condoning this crap with their silence. You can also refer to the two other pieces we wrote Sunday: "Piggies on parade" and "What Did You Do In The War, Mommy?" and while I do not want to put pressure on Ava and C.I., I would strongly encourage you to check out their TV commentary this Sunday. I know it's going to be something.

Starting with war resistance. As Dusti Fansler (Wellington Daily News) explains, "Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year." Sunday Matthis Chiroux is order to deploy to Iraq. This despite the fact that he was discharged and is in the IRR.

Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorable discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq. This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.

Courage to Resist has posted an interview with him (audio only). At the end of last month, California's New University weighed in on the issue, "Whether you have signed up for the military, are currently enlisted, are open to the idea or are violently opposed to serving, what remains clear is that if you are tapped to serve in Iraq, just don't go. First, the conflict has proven to be aimless, as little has gone smoothly since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. Second, because so many individuals are already unwilling to serve in Iraq, the U.S. army is ready to send just about anyone, whether they are prepared or not. Lastly, make no mistake that Iraq is a war zone. Despite the invasion being invalid, this illegal war can have the same effect on its soldiers as any credible conflict. . . . Over the years, the objectives of the war in Iraq have changed from toppling a dictator to finding harmful weapons to flat-out nation-building. As such, the Baush administration or its successor may attempt to shift the aim of the conflict again, to something that is anybody's guess. Still, know that the war in Iraq is an illegal and aimless conflicts and that soldiers such as Chioux should be applauded for their refusal to support it." May 23rd, he explained to Leia Petty (US Socialist Worker), "I didn't like the war from the start. I always thought it smelled fishy, but I knew at the time, the Army owned my ass for at least the next four-and-a-half years. So I got in line like most soldiers, and prayed night and day that I could trust American civilians to end the war. I was so disappointed when my prayers went unaswered. . . . I do want to be clear though that I did not make this decision to benefit any movement or serve anyone's agenda. I made this decision for myself, based on an intense personal conviction that what I am doing is not only right, but the only decision possible for me as a person and a veteran."

Watada, 30, is an unlikely icon of war resistance. At 5 feet 7 inches, he is unimposing and even shy, dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and sandals, with his dark hair cut Army-short and his ears sticking out. He was raised in Honolulu, where his father, Bob, worked for decades in campaign-finance reform, and his mother, Carolyn Ho, was a high school guidance counselor. Watada, an Eagle Scout,joined the Army in March 2003, his senior year at Hawaii Pacific University and,like everyone who enlists, pledged an oath that members of the U.S. military have taken since 1789. "It doesn't say, 'I, Ehren Watada, will do as I'm told.' It says I will protect the Constitution," Watada says. He supports war in principle and is not a conscientious objector--in fact, he offered to go to Afghanistan (his commanders turned him down). "I'm against the Iraq War," he says. "By law, the war iswrong."

Pacific Citizen Staff reminds: "It was seven months ago that a federal judge blocked the U.S. Army from conducting a second court-martial of Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq with his unit in June of 2006. U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle ruled that a secondtrial would violate Watada's constitutional rights, essentially agreeing with the officer's attorneys who argued double jeopardy -- that a person could not be tried twice for thesame crime." And Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) spoke with one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, and reports that Kagan believes "federal judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma will probably take up the matter early this fall. . . . Kagan said he expects the case to eventually go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where it may take up to three years before a decision is rendered."

Turning to Iraq. The White House wants to push through a treaty with Iraq (the UN authorization expires at the end of this year). Steve Negus and Harvey Morris (Financial Times of London) report that the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, declares talks over a Status Of Forces Agreement is at a "dead end" and they noted the White House attempts to play down the news: "Zalmay Khalilzad, US envoy to the UN, told the Financial Times the Bush administration remained optimistic that a bilateral aggreement would be reached." At the US State Dept, they were spinning yesterday as well with press flack Gonzalo R. Gallegos insisted on denying to reporters that there was in prolbem in negotiations on the SOFA and declared, "I think that the UN mandate does run through the end of the year, we've got about six more months to get to that point. I believe that we had Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker up here last week. He spoke very clearly about his concerns that this be done -- more important to him, this be done right, be done correctly than quickly. There's time left. We're continuing with our discussions with the government of Iraq. It's important to us that this be done correctly and we will see where we got with that."In Brussels today US Secretary of State Robert Gates was caught by surprise when confronted with the "dead end" remarks declaring, "I had not heard that and I'm not quite sure what the exact circumstances are. So I will have to, when I get home, find out what the status of those negotiations is, and whether there's a difference between what's actually going on in negotiations and the public posture. I just don't know the answer at this point." Which actually might be a wise position to take. Patrick Worsnip (Reuters) reports Hoshiyar Zebari (Foreign Minister of Iraq) states the talks are still ongoing.

Meanwhile AP reports Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement today declaring that resistance fighters battling the illegal occupation of Iraq "should be limited to a select group" (AP not al-Sadr quoted) and (al-Sadr quoted) "weapons will be in the hands of this group exclusively and will only be directed at the occupier." Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Sadr's statement was issued to his Mahdi Army militia and is the latest evidence that he is reacting to pressure from the U.S. and Iraqi military to disarm his followers, estimated at some 60,000. In August last year, he called for a cease-fire by his supporters, which was renewed in February for six months."

In the United States, Ben Pershing (Washington Post) documents that the war between Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) continues well after she trashed the Senate to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. At issue? The supplemental spending for the illegal war. Despite the fact that continuing to fund the illegal war continues the killing and Pelosi's Show Dancing of Opposition to the Iraq War, she insists that Congress must send Bully Boy something before July 4th: "I have made clear to the White House ... that we want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president, and that will happen before we leave for the 4th of July. I feel confident that will happen. . . . . We don't have that much time left. There are two and a half weeks left until the recess, and we will have a bill sent to the president by then, and it will have to be a bill that will pass in the House and the Senate." However, Pershing notes that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid states there's no rush, "They [the Pentagon] have enough money till the end of July, so we're not really that panicked about it."

Today US First Lady Laura Bush gave the press conference on Air Force One while it headed to France. During the press conference, she spoke warmly of France, Italy and Slovenia (but didn't cite Germany by name -- read the transcript of the press conference, I'm being kind) before agreeing with a reporter that the relationship between the US and Europe is mending ("I think it -- yes, I think it's on the mend, and --" at which point someone told Laura Bush the conference was over). If Germany was frosty, Sunday doesn't appear to be shaping into a church social either. UK's Socialist Worker gets instructive with, "Tell George Bush: 'Go to hell!'" and notes, "He will land in Britain this Sunday 15 June and his final stop will be Belfast. Since he stole the US elections in 2000, Bush has brought untold disaster on the world. He has launched wars without end, run a worldwide regime of kidnapping and torture, and brought death and ruin to every corner of the world." And they also note:

Socialist Worker is calling on anti-war activists to defy a police ban on the George Bush Not Welcome Here demonstration.A Stop the War Coalition (StWC) statement says, "We are calling on those who care for our democratic rights to come to Parliament Square at 5pm on Sunday 15 June. Some of those who signed statements accusing Bush of war crimes will be leading this protest."StWC convenor Lindsey German said, "George Bush has been dictating British foreign policy for many years. Now it appears his security services are determining our rights of protest. This is a disgrace and we will challenge the ban."Playwright Harold Pinter commented, "The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term 'democracy' laughable."

Turning to some of what Bully Boy (and Dems who refuse to stand up to him) have brought Iraq . . .

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the male in charge of an "Awakening" council in Uthaim was shot dead as were his 2 guards. CBS and AP report: "U.S. troops killed five suspected Shiite gunmen and detained two others Friday in a raid south of Baghdad, according to the U.S. military, and Iraqi police said two civilians were killed when they were caught in the crossfire."

Turning to the US political race for president, will sexism ever be seriously examined? Let's not even consult Magic 8ball, it's too depressing. But Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bowman offer "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage" today on the primary season. Women's Media Center -- not mentioned in the article -- is holding a panel on this topic Tuesday in NYC, free and open to the public. From nine in the morning until noon at The Paley Center for Media (25 West 52nd Street, NYC) and participants will include Juan Gonzalez, Christiane Amanpour, Sue Carroll, Courtney Martin, Celinda Lake, Mika Brzezinski, Catalina Camia, Geneva Overholser, Ron Wlaters, Dr. Kathy and Patricia Williams. "Sponsored by The White House Project, The Women's Media Center and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the forum is free of charge and open to the press and the public." Click here for the announcement and for information on registering.

2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader discusses a remark made to him by a fellow alumnus at a recent Princeton reunion. Watch the video here, read the transcript below.Do you think Ralph Nader should run? If so, let him know now with your contribution. (Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.) - The Nader Team****I was at my Princeton reunion the other day, and a young alumnus came up to me - he was very kind - and he said "You know, I really like what you're doing - I like what you did - but please don't run."I said "Do you realize what you are saying?"And he said "Yes, I said please don't run."I said "You're telling me not to use my First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition inside the electoral arena. You're telling me to shut up. Are you aware of what you're saying?"He said "I understand, I understand, I like what you're doing, but please don't run."So I went through and I said "Well, would you tell those voters instead of trying to determine which one was worse between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party - would you say to those candidates, 'Don't run'?"And he sort of paused.And I said "How about the people who refused to go least-worst between the Republicans and Democrats on women's suffrage? Would you tell those candidates 'don't run'? What do you say to that?"And he paused.And I took it up to date and I said "Would you tell Buchanan not to run?"And he said "I understand what you are saying, but please don't run."And I said "You know, unwittingly, you are engaging in a politically bigoted statement. Because you can oppose, and you can support, any candidates you want. But when you are saying to someone 'don't run' you are saying to someone 'do not speak, do not petition, do not assemble inside the electoral arena.'"Now I'm saying this because I'm sure you've had these conversations with people. Look at the word spoiler. Spoiler is a contemptuous word of political bigotry. They do not accuse George W. Bush of being the spoiler in 2000, and last I heard he got more votes than I did, vis-a-vis Al Gore. It's only the independent and third parties that are called spoilers.And think of the hubris here - these two parties have spoiled our elections, they've spoiled our government, they've spoiled our politics - and to have the temerity to say to someone who wants to reform the process that they are spoilers - they have no sense of humor - I mean, how do you satire satire?- Ralph Nader, New York City, May 31, 2008 - Watch the video"Ralph Nader should run for President so we all have a better choice in November. Please accept my support!"

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.